INTEGRATION OF CHAPTERS 3 and 4: TOWARDS A MEANING WORKPLACE

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

Work has been the centre-piece of human existence since times immemorial, whether the purpose was to gather food or to defend the tribe; to bury the dead or sustain life or security; whether as individuals or collectively, the expenditure of energy towards goal attainment was and still is a common trait of humans. Irrespective of the goals that were pursued, then and now, the common underlying denominator with modern times is that it requires a coordinated effort and therefore some form of work-organization to attain goals. The under-girding fundamental factors in this respect are (on the one hand) that people had to (and still have to) demonstrate behaviour that, in the broadest sense of the word, could be termed as « work related behaviour », and, on the other hand, it is assumed that this behaviour was and still is, goal orientated (Hersey and Blanchard, 1988, p. 18). In a certain sense, therefore, all of mans behaviour since earliest times can be defined as « organized » and goal directed behaviour.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY PROGRAM

The primary concept that struck a chord of interest for further research is the concept “meaning” and “meaningfulness” which seemed to be amiss in the work life of the individuals with whom the current researcher came into contact with on a professional level within a work setting. This initial observation was accompanied by a second, albeit initially a superficial observation, that the individual seems to have become trapped in a framework of labels that are somehow perceived to be the answer towards managing and predicting his/her behaviour. Not only has the individual been trapped in a framework of labels, but it is also perceived that the work environment and the behaviour of the individual can be managed in such a way as to create a predictable and therefore a linear cause and effect chain of events related to the behaviour of employees in organizational settings.
This perception is borne out by the current perception in organizations that individual and group behaviour can be managed by policy and regulatory statutes in the organization for the employees of the organization. The observed and experienced problem which served as the initial stimulus for this research was/is perceived as a loss of meaning at work. It would seem that human Resource practitioners and managers alike tend to assume that if a certain cause is created the individual will respond in a predictable way. Other practices that are operationalised in organizational settings result in the atomization of the individual and the subsequent suspension of the individual into a team/group and the bigger organization.
The paradox in the study of organizations and OB is to be found in the strange and complex relationship between the individual (on the one hand) and the organization (on the other hand). The paradox is situated in the phenomenon that the individual is at one and the same time also the “organization”. On the one hand, the individual constitutes the organization together with many other individuals that are somehow (based on the work breakdown structure of the total organization) grouped together in smaller teams or groups that constitute a specific task or sequence of tasks in the workflow process of the “organization”.

The initial journey: Towards formulating the study program

The original idea to pursue this specific study programme was born during a PhD seminar at the University of Pretoria during 2003. As an HR Manager the researcher was often confronted with employees who indicated that they do not enjoy their work and that work has become a burden (see also Chalofsky and Griffin, 2005). Employees came to work “feeling as if they were carrying a huge burden” complaining that they felt “unmotivated”; that they did not derive “satisfaction” from their work because work had become a slur (Personal interviews with employees as HR Manager/Business Partner for a particular division). In addition other opportunities presented themselves such as team building exercises, where employees were encouraged to voice their frustrations with the company, their work, supervisors, and management. In a safe surround these opportunities were fully utilised and many comments (in addition to the above) were noted.

Legitimized domination

« Strategic Management » as the mechanism towards these changes, still contains the principle of legitimised domination that originated in Bureaucratic Philosophy, although now much more refined and sophisticated. The individual thus remains trapped in a vacuum of powerlessness that is governed by systems, process, structures, procedures and prescriptive regulations. This not only leads to a fragmentation of the individual’s existence (on an emotional level), but also lays down barriers that prevent the individual from fully fulfilling his/her potential life roles including his/her work role. Individuals are « forced » under the threat of being « managed out » to perform to the highest possible level of output, without the conditions that contribute towards psychological fulfilment and meaningfulness.
Chalofsky and Griffin (2005) indicate that not only did the community become separated from work during the Industrial Era, but it created a situation whereby people did not own their work anymore. Work that is performed by the individual employee, either as an individual or within a group setting became the “property” of the organization. The result of the process of disowning work from the individual, also created a process of alienation through which the individual within the different contexts of life, missing out on real meaning making and connectedness which transcends the work environment and even encroaches upon the social life of the individual (Chalofsky, 2010).

READ  Supply chain management

TABLE OF CONTENT :

  • DECLARATION
  • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  • ABSTRACT
  • OPSOMMING
  • TABLE OF CONTENT
  • LIST OF FIGURES
  • LIST OF TABLES
  • TABLE OF CONTENT
  • 1 CHAPTER
    • 1.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY PROGRAM
      • 1.2.1 The initial journey: Towards formulating the study program
    • 1.3 BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM AREA
      • 1.3.1 Preliminary description of the observed problem: Behaviour is dynamic and unpredictable
    • 1.4 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR AS FOUNDATION FOR THE RESEARCH PROGRAM
    • 1.5 THE EVOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
      • 1.5.1 Management: The ancient symbols
      • 1.5.2 Management: Contributions during the 14th and 15th centuries: Workstudy
      • 1.5.3 Contributions from the Industrial Revolution
      • 1.5.4 Scientific Management
      • 1.5.5 The practice of management: The Human Relations movement and the Hawthorne studies
    • 1.6 CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD OF OB: A SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS
      • 1.6.1 Classical school (ca 1910):
      • 1.6.2 The Group Dynamics movement of the 1940’s:
      • 1.6.3 Bureaucracy 1940:
      • 1.6.4 The leadership drive of the 1950’s:
      • 1.6.5 The Socio-technical school during the ’60’s:
      • 1.6.6 Systems theory, (1970’s):
      • 1.6.7 The Contingency theory of the 1980’s:
    • 1.7 MODERNISM AND POST-MODERNISM IN ORGANIZATION SCIENCE
    • AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR
    • 1.7.1 Addressing the Problem of Modernism in OB
    • 1.8 SUMMARY
    • 1.9 THE PROBLEM DEFINED: LOSS OF MEANING AT WORK
    • 1.10PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
    • 1.11SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
    • 1.12RESEARCH QUESTIONS
    • 1.13SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
    • 1.14STRUCTURE
    • 2 CHAPTER
    • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
      • 2.1.1 Structural fit within the context of the research program
  • 2.1.2 Structure of the chapter
    • 2.2 RESEARCH AS THE PROCESS OF KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION
    • 2.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A FRAMEWORK/PARADIGM FOR INVESTIGATING AND UNDERSTANDING LIFE-WORLD PHENOMENA
      • 2.3.1 The dividing line: Qualitative and quantitative research
      • 2.3.2 The evolution of Qualitative Research
      • 2.3.3 Qualitative vs. Quantitative research
      • 2.3.4 Notes on reliability and validity in Qualitative research
      • 2.3.5 Data-gathering techniques in Qualitative research
    • 2.4 UNDERSTANDING DATA: PHENOMENOLOGY AS RESEARCH GENRE
      • 2.4.1 Phenomenology: Definitions, description and background
    • 2.5 REPRESENTATION: INTERPRETIVIST-CONSTRUCTIVISM AS RESEARCH STRATEGY FOR REPRESENTATION
    • 2.6 TOWARDS THEORY ENHANCEMENT:
      • 2.6.1 Grand theory or part theory?
      • 2.6.2 What is theory? (Theory and theoretical modelling)
    • 2.7 ABDUCTION AS AN INTERPRETIVE AND THEORY FORMATION TECHNIQUE
    • 2.8 CONCLUSION
  • 3 CHAPTER
    • 3.1 INTRODUCTION AND INTENT
    • 3.2 PROCESS-FLOW AND ENVISAGED CONCEPTUAL MODEL TOWARDS
    • THE CONSTRUCT: A MEANINGFUL WORKPLACE
    • 3.3 MEANINGFUL AS CONCEPT
    • 3.4 MEANINGFUL WORKPLACE: AN EMERGING CONSTRUCT
      • 3.4.1 Terez (2000) and Chalofsky (2010)
      • 3.4.2 Dimensions of overlap between Terez and Chalofsky
      • 3.4.3 A Meaningful workplace: The meeting between man and enterprise
    • 3.5 PROCESS FLOW 1:- MEANINGFUL WORK AS A MACRO CONSTITUTIVE DIMENSION OF THE CONSTRUCT: A MEANINGFUL WORKPLACE
      • 3.5.1 Moral philosophy and meaningful work
      • 3.5.2 The meaning of working
      • 3.5.3 Individual values, and the meaning of work (Ross et. Al. 1999)
      • 3.5.4 Max Weber and Protestant (Work) Ethic (PWE)
      • 3.5.5 Workplace spirituality/spirituality at work
      • 3.5.6 Meaningfulness in working and transcendence
      • 3.5.7 Fostering meaningfulness in working
      • 3.5.8 Fostering transcendence
      • 3.5.9 Summary: Extended Meaningful Work Model
    • 3.6 PROCESS FLOW 2: MEANING AT WORK: A MACRO CONSTITUTIVE DIMENSION OF THE CONSTRUCT: A MEANINGFUL WORKPLACE
      • The workplace as dynamic space
    • 3.6.2 Fostering meaningfulness at work
    • 3.7 ALIGNMENT OF MEANINGFUL WORK MODEL (INTEGRATED WHOLENESS) AND MEANINGFULNESS AT WORK MODEL
    • 3.7.1 Alignment between the meaningful work model and meaning at work model
    • 3.8 INTEGRATION OF MODELS (Meaning at Work/Meaningful Work Model
    • and Meaningfulness at Work Model)
    • 3.8.1 A preliminary definition
    • 3.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
  • 4 CHAPTER
    • 4.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 4.2 THE BEST EMPLOYER TO WORK FOR (SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT)
      • 4.2.1 The Research Process
      • 4.2.2 Areas of Research
    • 4.2.3 The benefit of the CRF reports
    • 4.3 EXIT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
      • 4.3.1 The background to the report
      • 4.3.2 The structure and discussion of the report
    • 4.4 REPERTORY GRID DATA
    • 4.4.1 Introduction: Presentation and interpretation of Repertory Grid Data
    • 4.4.2 Participants in and discussion of the Repertory Grid interviews
    • 4.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF A MEANINGFUL WORKPLACE ACCORDING TO THREE DATA SETS
    • 4.6 INTEGRATION OF CHAPTERS 3 and 4: TOWARDS A MEANING WORKPLACE
      • 4.6.1 Discussion of table
      • 4.6.2 Expanded Description of a Meaningful workplace
    • 4.7 CONCLUSION: CHAPTER
  • 5 CHAPTER
    • 5.1 INTRODUCTION
    • 5.2 ASSESSMENT ON THE FIRST LEVEL
    • 5.2.1 First level assessment
    • 5.3 SECOND LEVEL ASSESSMENT: METHODOLOGY
    • 5.4 SHORTCOMINGS
      • 5.4.1 Incomplete discussions
      • 5.4.2 Measurement
      • 5.4.3 Uncertainty
      • 5.4.4 Implementation process of the model
    • 5.5 RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY
    • 5.6 EXPERIENCE OF THE RESEARCHER
    • 5.7 CLOSING COMMENT

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
A MEANINGFUL WORKPLACE: FROM THEORY DEVELOPMENT TO APPLICABILITY

Related Posts